Dimitrios Moris1, Diamantis I Tsilimigras2, Ioannis D Kostakis3, Ioannis Ntanasis-Stathopoulos2, Kevin N Shah4, Evangelos Felekouras2, Timothy M Pawlik5. 1. Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, Columbus, OH, USA; Division of Surgical Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 2. 1st Department of Surgery, Laikon General Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece. 3. 2nd Department of Propedeutic Surgery, Laikon General Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece. 4. Division of Surgical Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 5. Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, Columbus, OH, USA. Electronic address: tim.pawlik@osumc.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The relative benefit of anatomic resection (AR) versus non-anatomic resection (NAR) of HCC remains poorly defined. We sought to evaluate the available evidence on oncologic outcomes, as well as the clinical efficacy and safety of AR versus NAR performed as the primary treatment for HCC patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using Medline, ClinicalTrials.gov and Cochrane library through April 15th, 2017. Only clinical studies comparing AR versus NAR were deemed eligible. RESULTS: A total of 43 studies were considered eligible (total 12,429 patients: AR, n = 6839 (55%) versus NAR, n = 5590 (45%)). Blood loss was higher among patients undergoing AR (mean difference: +229.74 ml, 95% CI: 97.09-362.38, p = 0.0007), whereas resection margin was slightly wider following AR versus NAR (mean difference: +0.29 cm, 95% CI: 0.15-0.44, p < 0.0001). No difference was noted for perioperative complications (RR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.81-1.11, p = 0.49) and perioperative mortality (RR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.43-1.95, p = 0.82). AR was associated with a disease-free survival (DFS) benefit at 1- (HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.68-0.92, p = 0.002), 3- (HR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.78-0.95, p = 0.004) and 5-years (HR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.82-0.93, p < 0.0001). AR also was associated with a decreased risk of death at 5-years (HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.79-0.97, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Despite the high heterogeneity among studies, the data demonstrated that AR had comparable perioperative morbidity and mortality versus NAR. AR seemed to offer an advantage versus NAR in terms of DFS and OS among patients undergoing resection of HCC - especially among patients without cirrhosis. Thus, AR should be considered the preferred surgical option for patients with HCC when feasible.
OBJECTIVE: The relative benefit of anatomic resection (AR) versus non-anatomic resection (NAR) of HCC remains poorly defined. We sought to evaluate the available evidence on oncologic outcomes, as well as the clinical efficacy and safety of AR versus NAR performed as the primary treatment for HCC patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using Medline, ClinicalTrials.gov and Cochrane library through April 15th, 2017. Only clinical studies comparing AR versus NAR were deemed eligible. RESULTS: A total of 43 studies were considered eligible (total 12,429 patients: AR, n = 6839 (55%) versus NAR, n = 5590 (45%)). Blood loss was higher among patients undergoing AR (mean difference: +229.74 ml, 95% CI: 97.09-362.38, p = 0.0007), whereas resection margin was slightly wider following AR versus NAR (mean difference: +0.29 cm, 95% CI: 0.15-0.44, p < 0.0001). No difference was noted for perioperative complications (RR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.81-1.11, p = 0.49) and perioperative mortality (RR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.43-1.95, p = 0.82). AR was associated with a disease-free survival (DFS) benefit at 1- (HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.68-0.92, p = 0.002), 3- (HR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.78-0.95, p = 0.004) and 5-years (HR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.82-0.93, p < 0.0001). AR also was associated with a decreased risk of death at 5-years (HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.79-0.97, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Despite the high heterogeneity among studies, the data demonstrated that AR had comparable perioperative morbidity and mortality versus NAR. AR seemed to offer an advantage versus NAR in terms of DFS and OS among patients undergoing resection of HCC - especially among patients without cirrhosis. Thus, AR should be considered the preferred surgical option for patients with HCC when feasible.
Authors: Lu Wu; Diamantis I Tsilimigras; Katiuscha Merath; J Madison Hyer; Anghela Z Paredes; Rittal Mehta; Kota Sahara; Fabio Bagante; Eliza W Beal; Feng Shen; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2019-04-22 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Iwan Paolucci; Raluca-Maria Sandu; Luca Sahli; Gian Andrea Prevost; Federico Storni; Daniel Candinas; Stefan Weber; Anja Lachenmayer Journal: IEEE Open J Eng Med Biol Date: 2020-02-14
Authors: Yujin Kwon; Boram Lee; Jai Young Cho; Ho-Seong Han; Yoo-Seok Yoon; Hae Won Lee; Jun Suh Lee; Munwhan Kim; Youngsoo Jo Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) Date: 2022-04-14 Impact factor: 2.948
Authors: Dimitrios Giannis; Sara Morsy; Georgios Geropoulos; Stepan M Esagian; Georgios S Sioutas; Dimitrios Moris Journal: In Vivo Date: 2021 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.406
Authors: Dimitrios Moris; Brian I Shaw; Cecilia Ong; Ashton Connor; Mariya L Samoylova; Samuel J Kesseli; Nader Abraham; Jared Gloria; Robin Schmitz; Zachary W Fitch; Bryan M Clary; Andrew S Barbas Journal: Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr Date: 2021-06 Impact factor: 7.293